http://www.orosha.org/pdf/notices/proposed2011/propchgs_conf_sp.pdf

As a company with some experience in this area, we decided to offer comments, which can be found here:

http://www.d2000safety.com/shop/images/OROSHA_comments.pdf

In the next few days I plan to post a summary of the proposed changes. I’ll also be presenting this information during a confined space safety presentation I’m planning to do at the Pulp and Paper conference in Portland on November 29th.

Does this worker need a permit?

One area of concern for many employers relates to the safety requirements needed when an employee reaches into a permit-required confined space to perform a low-hazard job task such as steam cleaning or collecting a sample.

Has the employee made a confined space entry? Is a permit needed? What exactly are the requirements?

The OSHA regulations don’t address this specific situation. The term ‘entry‘ as defined in 29 CFR 1910.146 tells us that an entry is, “the action by which a person passes through an opening into a permit-required confined space.” It goes on to state that, “entry includes ensuing work activities in that space and is considered to have occurred as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of an opening into the space.”

So this definition implies that any breaking of the confined space plane by any part of the body constitutes an entry, and this is the concept that is reinforced in all our confined space classes. Specifically, attendants are prohibited from reaching into the space for any reason. However, when the worker only reaches into the space without the need to go in, the intent of the standard can be hard to assess.

When dealing with partial entry from a safety standpoint we would need to identify hazards that would arise from reaching into the space. We would also need to look at the possible hazards of unintentional entry such as a worker slipping and accidently falling into a space. Based on this we would use the heirarchy of controls to control or eliminate the possible hazards.

Once we had managed the safety aspects we would address the compliance issues. These are addressed in OSHA’s letter of interpretation dated October 18, 1995.

Essentially this letter looked at the size of the permit space opening and placed them into two categories: 1) openings that are large enough for the worker to enter the space and 2) those which are too small (e.g., inspection portals) for the employee to enter but large enough for the employee’s arm to enter.

We’ll look at each of these situations individually.

Case 1: A confined space opening that is large enough for the worker to enter.

When a worker breaks the plane in this case, then a permit is required, regardless of the intent to fully enter. The letter does state that if the act of reaching in does not expose the worker to hazards, then the violation would be considered de minimis. (A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.) Examples of these situations include:

1. An entrant reaches through the opening of a horizontal PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains exposed live electrical parts ten feet from the opening.

2. An entrant put his head through the opening of an overhead PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains unguarded rotating parts ten feet from the opening.

In either case the worker has committed a violation of the rules but was not exposed to a hazard, hence a de minimis situation.

Case 2: A confined space opening that is not large enough for the worker to enter.

If a worker reaches into a space that isn’t large enough for the worker to enter, then OSHA says a permit is not required. Nonetheless, an employer is still obligated to identify and control any hazards associated with this activity.

One way that some employers have addressed workers reaching into spaces that are large enough to enter (Case 1) is by installing temporary grid or guards across an opening. These reduce the size of the opening so that it now no longer big enough for a worker to enter, but the worker can still reach in.

One might also assume that use of a fall or travel restraint system that prevents the worker from entering the space would also meet the intent of the standard. Reclassification of the space may also be a possibility.

In any case, the most important goal should be to protect the worker from hazards and then develop the procedures needed to make sure this happens. Once workers are trained to follow these procedures and the procedures are enforced, the likelihood of accidents related to partial entry should no longer pose a concern.

As a trainer and consultant I rarely tell them that something is or isn’t compliant (unless the answer is obvious) because the questioners may have omitted a key piece of information needed to make that determination . Instead I often try to provide them with a process for determining the answer on their own.

A first step in this process often involves understanding the intent of the OSHA standard they are trying to comply with. For example. the intent of the confined space standard (29 CFR 1910.146) is to implement the, “. . . requirements for practices and procedures to protect employees in general industry from the hazards of entry into permit-required confined spaces.” So if a question comes up regarding the proper intervals for air monitoring or whether two confined space entrants can be attached to the same retrieval line, I try to figure out whether the practice being described meets the intent of the standard. For excavation and fall protection, the intent of these standards are also quite clear. In an excavation, workers cannot be crushed, drowned, or asphyxiated. Likewise for fall protection, workers must be protected from slips, trips and falls to lower levels. 

Almost everyone who understands the basic concepts of safety realizes that blind adherance to the wording of a standard can, in some cases, create additional hazards that were not foreseen by those who actually wrote the standard. In these cases the employer is still obligated to develop the policies and procedures needed to accomplish the task while fulfilling the intent of the standard.

The reason for this is quite simple. Specifically, the General Duty clause requires employers to identify all job-related hazards and take corrective measures, and OSHA generally allows employers some degree of flexibility in developing the means and methods needed to protect workers.

In our experience, this generally requires an understanding of the intent of standard. If you meet this intent using sound safety practices you will, most likely, be safe and compliant.

There are several classes of intrinsically safe equipment which have been tested and rated by Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) and they are broken down into several categories depending on the type of flammable substance and its possible presence in the work areas.

The three classes of flammables are designated I, II, and III.

• Class I is for flammable gases/vapors or liquids.
• Class II is for combustible dusts, and
• Class III for ignitable fibers and flyings.

UL uses both Division and Zone methods, although the Division system seems to be more common.

Under both the Division & Zone systems, work areas are classified based on:

• The likelihood that the explosive gas atmosphere is present when the equipment is operating;
• The ignition-related properties of the explosive atmosphere;
• The maximum surface temperature of the equipment under normal operating conditions; and
• The protection method(s) used by the equipment to prevent ignition of the surrounding atmosphere.

Class I: Flammable Gases, Vapors or Liquids

These types of fuels are divided up based on their likelihood.

Division 1: This is where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids can exist all of the time or some of the time under normal operating conditions.

Division 2: This is where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Zones are defined as follows:

Zone 0: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are present continuously or for long periods of time under normal operating conditions.

Zone 1: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Zone 2: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Class II: Combustible Dusts

Division 1: Where ignitable concentrations of combustible dusts can exist all of the time or some of the time under normal operating conditions.

Division 2: Where ignitable concentrations of combustible dusts are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Divisions 1 and 2 are also divided into groups E (metals – Division 1 only), F (coal), and G (grain)

Class III: Ignitable Fibers and Flyings

Class III Area Classification

Division 1: Where easily ignitable fibers or materials producing combustible flyings are handled, manufactured or used.

Division 2: Where easily ignitable fibers are stored or handled.

Once we have a sense of these terms we can see that a headlamp which is rated by the UL as being Class I, Division II would be appropriate to use in most confined space entries when the air is being monitored. If sufficient levels of a combustible gas were encountered and the alarm sounded, the headlamp should not pose an ignition risk while the entrants are evacuating the space. If we were entering a fuel tank under supplied air, then we would want a headlamp certified as being Class I, Division I.

If you have any questions about this, or any other aspect of confined space safety, please call us at 800-551-8763.